Compositional Causal Identification from Imperfect or Disturbing Observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The usual inputs for a causal identification task are a graph representing qualitative causal hypotheses and a joint probability distribution for some of the causal model’s variables when they are observed rather than intervened on. Alternatively, the available probabilities sometimes come from a combination of passive observations and controlled experiments. It also makes sense, however, to consider causal identification with data collected via schemes more generic than (perfect) passive observation or perfect controlled experiments. For example, observation procedures may be noisy, may disturb the variables, or may yield only coarse-grained specification of the variables’ values. In this work, we investigate identification of causal quantities when the probabilities available for inference are the probabilities of outcomes of these more generic schemes. Using process theories (aka symmetric monoidal categories), we formulate graphical causal models as second-order processes that respond to such data collection instruments. We pose the causal identification problem relative to arbitrary sets of available instruments. Perfect passive observation instruments—those that produce the usual observational probabilities used in causal inference—satisfy an abstract process-theoretic property called marginal informational completeness. This property also holds for other (sets of) instruments. The main finding is that in the case of Markovian models, as long as the available instruments satisfy this property, the probabilities they produce suffice for identification of interventional quantities, just as those produced by perfect passive observations do. This finding sharpens the distinction between the Markovianity of a causal model and that of a probability distribution, suggesting a more extensive line of investigation of causal inference within a process-theoretic framework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".